Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

from the permission-culture dept

Weird. Just a few weeks ago, I wrote about how, for the first time ever, the top two comments for both the funniest comment and the most insightful comment were the same on each list. And here we are with it happening again. The winner, by far, for both the funniest comment and the most insightful comment came on the post about the ridiculousness of "permission culture" as illustrated by a musician seeking to get permission to create a parody of a song, and finding it positively Kafkaesque to even begin to tackle the bureaucratic nightmare. One of our regular critics mocked the whole thing by saying that if you want to "borrow someone's property" you need permission, so he didn't see what the big deal was. Of course, that ignored the mess that was actually happening, and so an Anonymous Commenter picked up on someone else's use of "borrowing a ladder" to clarify just how crazy the "permission culture" situation is:

The analogy already works for the ladder.

Say you have some gunk clogging up your roof gutters, and you want to clean it out, but you don't have a ladder.

Of course you ask your neighbour for permission to borrow his ladder for half an hour. However, when you ring the doorbell, an unknown person opens and says that you cannot talk to your neighbour. You cannot borrow the ladder from this unknown person but he can redirect you to someone that might be able to. He gives you a phone number and sends you on your way.

The phone is not answered for days and when you do get someone on the line, he first wants to know what you will be using it for. He can borrow you the ladder if you provide a photo of the ladder in its intended use.

Oh, and of course, while you would then have permission to use the ladder, you are not allowed to go and *take* it. For that, you will need permission from two other people, one to go to the shed where the ladder is, and one to move the ladder from the current location to the location of use. The first is unavailable for comments right now, but his representative knows that he'll most probably happily give you permission if the second one agrees.

The second one first wants a sample of the roof gutter, to prove that you are actually going to use the ladder for the purposes you claim.

So, the steps involved are:
1. take ladder
2. use ladder to get gunk
3. take photo
4. put back ladder
5. show gunk to person in charge of ladder movement
6. receive permission for ladder movement
7. show permission for ladder movement to persion in charge of ladder acquisition
8. receive permission for ladder acquisition
9. show photo from step 3 to person in charge of general ladder-borrowing
10. receive permission to perform step 1.

See? What could anyone possibly be complaining about?

Coming in second place on both lists was a comment from W Klink in response to the MPAA giving Congressional staffers a private screening of the movie Total Recall, along with an "educational program" telling them how bad copyright infringement is. W Klink noted the irony:

They're giving free movies to congressmen to convince them that free movies are bad.

As for editor's choice on the "insightful" side of the coin, we'll kick it off with Nina Paley, responding to the same critic that the winning comment above was responding to. One part of that comment referenced Nina, mocking her for making Sita Sings the Blues first and asking for permission later. Nina noted one key difference between her situation (where she sought permission afterwards) and the musician Huge, who sought it beforehand:

Yeah. That's the point. The purpose of copyright law is supposed to be to benefit the public by creating incentives for new works. Yet, with Nina copyright would have likely stopped her movie from being made, as it did with Huge.

Next up, we have another Anonymous Coward, doing a good job summarizing the "success" of the recording industry's lawsuits against file sharing sites after it came out that they have no interest in sharing any money they collect with the actual artists:

So, to recap, all of this was an exercise in futility:

1- They (RIAA/IFPI/whatever) got no appreciable amount of money from this.
2- The artists aren't getting any money, full stop.
3- The pirate bay is still up.
4- Piracy is still going strong (or stronger).

Wouldn't it make more sense to invest the money that was wasted in this lawsuit into embracing new technology and new business models that are piracy-proof?

Sound advice that will never be heeded.

Okay, moving on to editor's choice for funny comments. First up, we've got Applesauce, responding to one author's claim that the market for professional writers is dying and the government should just give all writers a living wage. But why stop at book writers?

I learned to program on the Commodore 64 which just turned 40 years old. In the years since then, the market for Commodore 64 programmers has dried up. It took great skill and expertise to write programs using the limited resources of the C64 and that whole way of life has nearly disappeared, to the great impoverishment of that whole C64 industry.

Clearly, as a culture, we cannot allow that loss to continue. I propose a simple structure of federal subsidies to these professionals who have been so unfairly impacted by the predatory encroachments of PC, Apple and Amiga programmers. If not a government subsidy, a fairness tax on other computer manufacturers is only simple justice.

And, finally, from Donnicton, we have a different response to the MPAA's "education" campaign for Congress during which they are doing that screening of the remake of Total Recall. Donnicton was left thinking about who's actually causing Hollywood's problems:

Dear government,

Please grant us more IP protections, so that we may hold onto our exclusive right to continue ironically cheapening our brand with crappy remakes and sequels to classic movies before piracy can cheapen it for us.

Thank you,

MPAA

And on that note, back to the trenches. We'll be back tomorrow with plenty more.

Reader Comments

As for editor's choice on the "insightful" side of the coin, we'll kick it off with Nina Paley, responding to the same critic that the winning comment above was responding to. One part of that comment referenced Nina, mocking her for making Sita Sings the Blues first and asking for permission later. Nina noted one key difference between her situation (where she sought permission afterwards) and the musician Huge, who sought it beforehand:

Yeah. That's the point. The purpose of copyright law is supposed to be to benefit the public by creating incentives for new works. Yet, with Nina copyright would have likely stopped her movie from being made, as it did with Huge.

I'm trying to understand your pirate logic. Help me out. If Nina was able to get permission after her movie was made, then why do you think she couldn't have gotten the same permission beforehand? Answer me that.

And you really don't understand copyright, do you? Copyright gives the incentive to create new works, but it does so by giving exclusive rights. Exclusive, as in private property rights. The right to exclude other people from using that property for certain things. Copyright isn't stopping anyone from creating new works, it only prevents them from using other people's works in certain ways. You seem to think that someone exercising their exclusive rights is an indication of copyright not working as it's supposed to, but the fact is, that's copyright working EXACTLY as it's intended to work. What you're saying makes zero sense: you seem to think that by allowing copyright owners to exclude others, copyright isn't doing what it's supposed to do. That's total nonsense and you know it.

Re: Re:

You're saying the exact same illogical thing as Mike. The means chosen to promote the progress is by giving authors the right to exclude others. To then complain that an author's right to exclude others is actually excluding others makes no sense. Of course it is. That's exactly what it's supposed to do. The Constitution doesn't say, "Let's incentivize new works no matter what." The Constitution says, "Let's incentivize new works by giving authors the right to exclude." Not recognizing that right to exclude, as Nina did at first, is contrary to what the Constitution envisions. Your view, that there shouldn't be a right to exclude, is the opposite of what the Constitution says. You guys have it backwards. Mike knows this, and he's being dishonest about it.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

It doesn't run counter to the goal of creating new works. Everyone can create *NEW* works. They just can't use other people's property in certain ways while doing so. This is exactly what the Constitution envisions with the right to exclude.

As far as derivative rights go, you may be right. But the Constitution doesn't say that there shouldn't be derivative rights. To the extent derivative rights aren't grounded in the Copyright Clause, they can surely be grounded in the Commerce and/or N&P Clauses. Obviously the First Amendment places limits on the right, and in a given situation you might be able to invoke that argument. But simply saying that the derivative right isn't envisaged by the Constitution is: (1) debatable, (2) irrelevant, and (3) a policy issue, not a constitutional one.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

If building on what came beofre disquilifies a work from being new then there are no new works.

And that "property right" you keep talking about is an optional power granted to congress. They can promoter the progress of the science and the useful arts with "exclusive rights to autors and inventors" being the method perscribed.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Any granted monopoly should be very short and very narrow, because we all know from history what monopolies really do and what purpose they serve and unless they are both short time and very narrow in scope you get this mess.

Granting monopolies for derivatives defeats the purpose of incentivizing the creation of new works by reducing the number of options that others have to circumvent monopolistic barriers.

Besides the world have changed, do we need granted monopolies to exist anymore in developed countries?

I see open culture flourishing, I see open development flourishing and becoming a real market all without the benefits of a granted monopoly, so how is that granting a monopoly is necessary to "incentivate" anything, those monopolies where given as a necessary evil(according to Thomas Jefferson), when there is no need for that evil to exist anymore there is no reason to keep it around now is it?

Since congress was given the authority to grant or not those privileges they should be revoked until such a time that they are needed again, hopefully never.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Any granted monopoly should be very short and very narrow,"

You keep trying, but you keep failing.

"Monopolies" in music and movies, if you accept them with that name, as incredibly narrow. So narrow, that they apply to a single product. There is no monopoly on "music" or "movies", you can make new ones any time you like.

"Granting monopolies for derivatives defeats the purpose of incentivizing the creation of new works by reducing the number of options that others have to circumvent monopolistic barriers."

An equally failing argument. You can write a song of a similar style (think Blues, Jazz, Rock, Soul) without having to just cover someone else's song. Yes, each of those type of music do have performers who cover others, but they do not claim to own the song, only to own their rendition.

While you are limited in a sense to how many notes exist in music, the beauty isn't just in the selection of notes, but in how they are played. It's how a guitarist like and Eddie Van Halen or a Frank Zappa stands out, even were working with that you consider to be a reduced number of options.

That's why people still write new songs.

"I see open culture flourishing, I see open development flourishing and becoming a real market all without the benefits of a granted monopoly, so how is that granting a monopoly is necessary to "incentivate" anything, those monopolies where given as a necessary evil(according to Thomas Jefferson), when there is no need for that evil to exist anymore there is no reason to keep it around now is it?"

Misleading - and a common play here on Techdirt. That open source software is currently fluorishing does not suggest that this would work for other industries. In fact, open source software generally is about a near constant flow of incremental improvements, not about stunning long leaps. Can you imagine music evolving by having a new version of a song come out each day with one single note changed in a 4 minute song, or perhaps the song of the snare drum changed ever so slightly?

Open source software works for reason that just don't apply to more individualist pursuits like making music or movies.

"Since congress was given the authority to grant or not those privileges they should be revoked until such a time that they are needed again, hopefully never."

You still haven't made a valid argument as to why they aren't needed, so it's hard to imagine them showing up to revoke them any time soon. If this is your A material, I would say the answer is "not in your lifetime".

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Congress should clarify the purpose of "exclusive rights" which are to incentivize creation of new works not block all derivatives.

You don't use bait stronger that what you want to catch, you don't make the bait have a fighting chance against fish. Therefore copyright should never provide strong exclusion powers to anyone since it reduces the pool where creation happens.

Re: Re: Re:

Well, if you want to get technical, the clause states: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

It doesn't mention corporations or lawyers or stockholders or managers or middlemen. So if you're going by what the constitution says rather than the laws derived from the copyright clause, only the creator of the work can hold the copyright. It also states that the exclusive right is for limited times. Since Congress keeps pushing that length out to protect Mickey Mouse and friends, it's not really limited anymore.

As far as I'm concerned, if the current purpose of copyright is to secure for indefinite times corporate profits via iron-grip monopolies on culture that the corporations didn't even create and rights to extort payment via lawsuit threats and thus profits to subvert democratic processes by bribing Congress members to push more draconian laws that go against the will of the unrepresented citizens of the country, then the public bargain on copyright is broken.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Yes, it doesn't mention the particulars. But the Constitution does leave those details to Congress. And the market takes care of the rest. Just like with everything else.

Look, I get that you guys don't like copyright law. But over-constitutionalizing everything doesn't help your cause. Is dishonest to claim, as Mike does, that the Constitution envisions incentivizing new works at the expense of violating other people's copyright rights. The purpose of copyright is to incentivize the creation of *new* works, ones that don't infringe other people's rights. Mike makes the silly argument that since Nina couldn't violate other people's rights in creating her movie, the Constitution's purpose of incentivizing new works wasn't being fulfilled. That's rubbish. The Constitution doesn't say it's OK to infringe while creating new works. The Constitution says that authors who have already created new works should be allowed to prevent others from infringing on those works.

Mike knows all this, or course. Which is probably why those crickets are singing yet again. Not even with the home-field advantage, Mike? That says it all.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I never said it was a moral right under the Constitution. So I don't get your point. So what? The Constitution envisions that authors get the right to exclude.

Nor do I understand what your point is about the derivative right. Are you saying that such rights are not envisioned by the Constitution? If so, so what? That doesn't mean they are unconstitutional (which they are not).

You aren't making much sense. And you surely haven't done what Mike can't do: explain how Nina having to ask for permission is somehow not what the Constitution has in mind. It's exactly what the Constitution envisions: Authors get the right to exclude, and others who are excluded must get permission to do certain things with copyrighted works.

Mike intentionally misrepresents the very purpose of copyright and he incorrectly constitutionalizes everything to add supposed gravitas to his policy preferences. It's ridiculous. If you want to argue for a change in policy, go for it, but quit pointing to the Constitution and lying about what it says, Mike.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

It is not what the founders evisioned since they did not grant this right when they enacted copyright law.

Now this in itself does not mean the derivative rights are uncostitutional.

But derivative rigths can run counter to the purpose of copyright if they block the creation of works. And that's irrelevant to whether the founder's intended such blockage when such blockage was only for the pupose of getting new works out there.

See, if you're doing something with the intent to influence a result and you get the opposite of what you intended thin you should cange what you're doing.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

It is not what the founders evisioned since they did not grant this right when they enacted copyright law.

Now this in itself does not mean the derivative rights are uncostitutional.

But derivative rigths can run counter to the purpose of copyright if they block the creation of works. And that's irrelevant to whether the founder's intended such blockage when such blockage was only for the pupose of getting new works out there.

See, if you're doing something with the intent to influence a result and you get the opposite of what you intended thin you should cange what you're doing.

I don't see your point. The Constitution says that Congress can give authors the right to exclude. Congress gives authors the right to exclude, including the derivation right. That the Framers hadn't considered the derivation right (a claim that I don't know to be true or false) is of no moment since it is nonetheless a right to exclude. Derivation rights do not run counter to the purpose of copyright since they are simply the right to exclude, and the Constitution clearly envisions that Congress will give authors the right to exclude. If the Framers intended allow the use of copyrighted works, then they wouldn't have set up a system that does not allow the use of copyrighted works. You really aren't making any sense. Just say that you don't agree with copyright, and please quit trying to twist copyright into something it's not. Copyright has always been about the right to exclude others from using copyrighted works in certain ways.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I get that in theory that could happen, I just don't see how that's even close to happening. Nina can make all the movies she wants. But if she wants to use other people's works in certain ways in her movies, she needs to get permission because those works are someone else's property. We live in a permission culture when it comes to copyrighted works, as the Constitution envisions. The Framers did *not* set up a system where Nina can make movies using other people's works all she wants. They set up a system where if she wants to use other people's works, then she needs to get permission because those other people have the right to exclude her from using their works.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

And now people are questioning if that system is still a necessary evil, a monopoly is an evil, one which should be granted with great care, one that should be severely limited, but this is not what we have now is it?

From incentive it was transformed into soemthing that must be defended at all costs, which was never the real intention of that clause in the constitution, if we go back not even literature except for scientific books was covered and then it got expanded, and expanded and for good measure expanded again and this keeps going on, now that people finally said no, some people believe they can continue to do business as usual and that there will be no push back, they are wrong.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

What point? There is no point, just you trying to argue that a fact isn't a fact. Copyright is a monopoly, FACT. Everyone with half a brain knows this. Everyone recognizes that, the government, the law, the people, everyone but you it seems. Like I said bellow, you just keep up living in fantasy land, it seems like the appropriate place for a fanatical Hollywood supporter like you.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Opposing:

- A granted monopoly for life plus 95 years.
- Levies on goods.
- Collection agencies that charge everybody and pay no one except a few.
- Restrictive interpretations of the law that diminish ownership of the buyer.
- Exclusive rights over derivatives.
- Criminalizing of circumvention of DRM or copying anything that is not target at a market with commercial intent.
- Tax payers having to pay for enforcement of private interests that are not for the public good, but just for the good of a select few.
- Erosion of citizens privacy.
- Erosion of citizens liberties.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

All of these problems could be amiliorated or solved by reducing copyrights scope or doing it away with it entirely since we don't need a necessary evil that its time has ended, it served its purpose, now the market can live without it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

eejit, with due fairness, transformative works are "works based directly upon..." which is EXACTLY one of the things copyright is meant to cover. Why transform when you can make new? Why keep going back to the old?

The world isn't a poorer place without transformative works. In fact, I could imagine that Nina's opus would have been MUCH more significant if it had new music, and not old, recycled stuff.

The artist / rights holder should always have the option to say no. That right is part of what makes copyright work.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

" if it had new music, and not old, recycled stuff."

So...what exactly is your definition of new music? Pretty much every instrument and every note has been used in a copyrighted work. That would then leave Nina without any music at all to use, regardless if she was the one playing the instruments or not.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

eejit, with due fairness, transformative works are "works based directly upon..." which is EXACTLY one of the things copyright is meant to cover. Why transform when you can make new? Why keep going back to the old?

Legally speaking, you are wrong. Congress has explicitly *allowed* transformative works, as part of fair use.

You might want to try brushing up on the law before continuing to display ignorance.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The American constitution says nothing of the sort, what it says is that if it need be congress has the authority to grant special privileges in the form of granted monopolies(i.e. exclusive rights).

If there is no need to grant those monopolies why should they exist at all, we know from history books that those privileges where viewed as a necessary evil, should a day come that they are no longer needed, congress should steadfastly revoke those "exclusive rights".

Congress erred in its interpretation of the constitution and now it is time to fix that.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

When congress and the people disagree, everybody becomes outlaws.

You just can't force people to do what you want if they don't want to follow it, that is why you need a majority consensus so you and the majority can force the minority the other way around never worked, it ends in revolution or LuLz.

Personaly I am all for the LuLz, no matter what the law says, no matter what you say, no matter what congress or any government say, I know for a fact that I don't need to follow or respect copyright, it is in my power to ignore it and there is nothing you or anybody can do about it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The purpose of copyright is to incentivize the creation of *new* works, ones that don't infringe other people's rights.

Using trees, grass, every kind of terrain/liqiud/metal/mineral/plasma/fire/element, all animal species, any language, outer space, time, all cultures, the whole concept of stories, the whole concept of art even picking your pencil to draw and posting on this forum fuck it EVERYTHING (& nothing) is infringing on the rights of God. Repent your sins, pirate!

Re: Re: Re:

Your view, that there shouldn't be a right to exclude, is the opposite of what the Constitution says. You guys have it backwards. Mike knows this, and he's being dishonest about it.

It is not a matter of dishonesty. It is a matter of interpretation. You seem to be viewing Article 1 of the Constitution as being an acknowledgement that reserving exclusive rights WILL "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". "Our view" (mine, anyway) is that Article 1 is delimiting a condition upon reserving those rights; i.e., if doing so does not promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts then granting such exclusive monopolies is not authorized by the Constitution.

Furthermore, "our view" (mine, at least) is that the copyright regime as currently instituted and prosecuted is NOT fulfilling that condition that it "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" -- in fact, it is hindering it.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

If Mike Masnick is saying *anything* about copyright, then there is dishonesty involved. What I'm saying is that the Constitution gives Congress the power to give authors the right to exclude. It's wrong to pretend like Nina needing permission to use someone else's copyrighted property is somehow antithetical to the purpose of copyright because it, so Mike's argument goes, prevents the creation of new works. But that's a dishonest framing of the issue, and the Constitution indeed envisions that creators of new works, such as Nina, are to be in fact limited in what they can do with the works that others have already created. To say, as Mike dishonestly does, that copyright isn't doing what it's supposed to do when it gives authors the right to exclude others is just stupid. I understand that *you* don't think that copyright promotes the progress, but fact is, that determination is for Congress to make. You just don't like the determination that they have made. Your remedy is in the ballot box. But pulling out the Constitution as Mike so dishonestly and so often does is just stupid.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

If Mike's so open, human, and awesome, then why isn't he here defending what he's said? Why does he poke me with a stick in his article, and then when I'm in the comments ready to engage him in a discussion, he's nowhere to be found? Should make you guys think twice about the type of person that he is. Won't even engage detractors on his own website, where he has tons of other people to join in and get his back. Now *that's* the sign of a man who has no argument that can withstand even the slightest scrutiny. If Mike wants people to take him seriously, he should stand by his words, and his responses should address the substance of his critics' points.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Wow, really? You've never seen Masnick post in the comments in response to others, including a frequent, obnoxious detractor whose bulk of arguments is "fuck off and die"?

If you're so concerned about Masnick constantly "blowing you off", why do you shills insist on responding without handles to go by? Did you think that posting on expired articles from several months ago like darryl and hurricane head so no one would notice, then coming back to complain about not getting responses, would make your moral outrage justified?

The fact that the first portion of your rebuttal is "Masnick can't be trusted with copyright" already means you're not interested in discussion. You're only interested in insulting Masnick and you're trying to propose it as some reasonable replacement for debate. Fat chance.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

How can you say that! Why, I myself, have been very convinced when he posts about how Mike is, and I quote: "A pirate, criminal apologist, lying, weasel, slime-ball, sack of shit, freetard, who needs to fuck off and die in a fire". See, very convincing--well, convincing that he's a psychotic asshole with vested interests in posting insults here, day after day after day.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I think the problem is that in order to get you guys to think past the end of your noses, we almost have toss a live one into the discussion just to get you to wake up.

The anonymous coward above does speak the truth - this is a case where Mike has taken a VERY (extremely) narrow view copyright law. Copyright does not stop creativity, far from it. It does get in the way of duplication, and that is a different story. Putting 1% creativity and 99% duplication into something doesn't suddenly create anything new that deserves MORE rights than the existing copyright holder.

It's the basic flaw in how Mike looks at things in general. he takes very narrows views of things, comes up with ways to use a sort of logic to support those extremely narrow views, and then tries to apply them globally across a whole field.

It's amazing to watch him do it, and it's amusing as hell to watch guys like you fall for it.

The windmill you are tilting at right now is both the Constitution and laws passed by congress as a result of powers granted by said Constitution. The greatest anti-copyright legal minds have fought against it, and lost - because it's all within the Constitution. Larry Lessig is still out there with a very sore ass after the legal reaming he got in the courts arguing first amendment protection. That didn't work out well, and none of the other vague "gotta change" arguments have held much sway.

The Constitution created it, the law defines it more narrowly, and unless you specifically change the laws, you won't get what you are looking for - even then, it is unlikely that you can take back something from copyright holders going backwards.

So you can wave your arms and jump around, but it remain a simple thing: Copyright is the law, it's constitutional, and it's not going away, no matter how hard you pirate.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Putting 1% creativity and 99% duplication into something doesn't suddenly create anything new that deserves MORE rights than the existing copyright holder."

There you go again, arguing against yourself. This is exactly what Disney is infamous for. They take an existing work, duplicate 99% of it, add 1% creativity, then start arguing that their work deserves more monopolistic protections than the pre-existing work.
Like I've said in other comments, this is what we hate. The hypocrisy. The pre-existing works can be mined dry, but once it comes to Disney et al...nope, that's illegal!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"The Constitution created it, the law defines it more narrowly, and unless you specifically change the laws, you won't get what you are looking for - even then, it is unlikely that you can take back something from copyright holders going backwards."

You may have heard of this little thing (misleadingly) called 'piracy'. It's quite popular with the general public these days. It's where people ignore the wishes of copyrights holders because they have lost all respect for these laws you think are so powerful. If you think that respect will ever be regained, you're a fool.

Re: Re: Re:

Okay, then, put up or shut up. Here's the challenge. You create something ENTIRELY new, something that doesn't use something that has appeared in another work of art.
I'll wait.

Now, here's my example. According to what you're preaching, Tolkien himself shouldn't have been allowed to write and publish the Hobbit. Why? Because it's largely a rip-off of the Beowulf legend, in that it has a dragon resting on top of a pile of treasure who goes ape-shit when someone sneaks in and steals something small.
Pretty much all works today are nothing more or less than remixes of other works. If copyright were to be massively enforced on the entire populace like you want, no-one would dare attempt anything at art at all.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

He doesn't care, he is neither an artist nor a consumer. Hence his hate for both groups, and unconditional support of lawyers and their masters at his holly temple Hollywood. You can easily tell what job he's in.

Re: Re: Re:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

That's from the Constitution. Let us analyze facts for a moment.

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts

Copyright in its current form does not pass this test. Mr Huge asked permission to create a parody, a whole new form of art and is being denied. Disney is locking up parts of Public Domain with copyright preventing others from remixing on these works. Tons of content is taken down from Youtube everyday, new content derived from existing (mash ups, remixes, parodies) because of copyright. So it fails this very fundamental point.

by securing for limited Times
Every time Mickey mouse gets near expiration we get a copyright extension. It's failing here too. Limited time doesn't mean perpetuity.

to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

Why do we have "copyright holders"? Why can labels and studios force the artists to give up their copyrights? So yes, copyright fails even at this. The rights should belong to the creators and should not be transferable.

So any argument you may have in favor of copyright is irrelevant. The system is fundamentally broken.

Re:

Copyright gives the incentive to create new works, but it does so by giving exclusive rights.

Woah, woah, wait.

It gives an "incentive" to create by giving a very small percentage of creators an "exclusive right" to create, thereby restricting everyone else from creating? How the fuck does that work?

Copyright isn't stopping anyone from creating new works, it only prevents them from using other people's works in certain ways.

Excuse me, if you stop someone from using something to create a work you are stopping creativity, period.

You can butter up it with a million legal weasel words and candy and sugar but it is stopping creativity.

What you're saying makes zero sense: you seem to think that by allowing copyright owners to exclude others, copyright isn't doing what it's supposed to do.

Oh, no. I know that's what it is supposed to do, and it does it very well.

90% of the time the people with the monopoly do little to no creating themselves, often imprisoning their works once they perceive it no longer 'profitable' or 'useful'. Also often against the wishes of fans who they give the finger and attempt to corral towards the 'next big thing', which they probably didn't create either just acquired the rights for.

Re: Re:

I'm just curious why you even brought up the whole 'incentive to create' thing, honestly. Cause we both know that is not the REAL purpose of modern copyright, even the tiniest amount of scrutiny proves it false.

I guess even you knew if you left it out it not even ignorant people would fall for it, which is sadly what copyright depends on to survive: deceit and ignorance.

Re: Re:

Excuse me, if you stop someone from using something to create a work you are stopping creativity, period.

You can butter up it with a million legal weasel words and candy and sugar but it is stopping creativity.

I don't believe that creativity could be stopped even if that were the goal, which it isn't.

Oh, no. I know that's what it is supposed to do, and it does it very well.

90% of the time the people with the monopoly do little to no creating themselves, often imprisoning their works once they perceive it no longer 'profitable' or 'useful'. Also often against the wishes of fans who they give the finger and attempt to corral towards the 'next big thing', which they probably didn't create either just acquired the rights for.

Copyright owners, like all property owners, have the right to "imprison" their works as they see fit. If you don't like how someone manages their property, don't do business with that person. The sense of entitlement among the TDers is hilarious.

Re: Re: Re:

"Copyright owners, like all property owners, have the right to "imprison" their works as they see fit. If you don't like how someone manages their property, don't do business with that person. The sense of entitlement among the TDers is hilarious."

Yes, they do have the right to imprison their works, by actually imprisoning them. I can't call foul if I record a piece of music, distribute it, and then, somehow, someone has copied it.
As for a sense of entitlement? My god man...do you not realise you are arguing against yourself here? Copyrights have existed for only about 300 years. Prior to that, anyone could copy anything as they saw fit, but most people didn't, as they weren't physically capable of doing it (being able to read, having paper, inks and other materials, etc).
As technology advanced and copying became easier and easier, the law should have recognised that. Instead, we get YOUR massive sense of entitlement. We cannot do what we want with our own equipment. We, the taxpayer, have to pay for judges to protect YOUR copyright. As technology tries to advance, we get people like YOU arguing that the copyright cartel should have a veto vote on whether that technology should exist or not.
Even though I choose not to do business with these people, they still somehow are entitled to the fruits of my labours. People in Canada, when buying a blank CD, pay most of the cost of that CD to the copyright cartel, to pre-emptively punish them for any music they'll copy onto those CDs. This is a massive side-step of the law, in that people are accused, tried and punished in one fell swoop, all with no recourse, no way of not paying this "You are automatically a violator of copyright law" fine.

That is what I and other TDers hate. The massive entitlements of the copyright cartel. You can argue that then we shouldn't download movies etc, but those are individual acts done by individuals. What the copyright cartels do are broad acts, that massively affect everyone else. I don't consider the fact I download a few movies here and there to be on the same scale as the cartel trying to manipulate the justice system to prosecute people that their own laws say they shouldn't be able to prosecute!

Re: Re: Re:

"Copyright owners, like all property owners, have the right to "imprison" their works as they see fit."

First, copyright owners (good to see you didn't say creators) are not like property owners, because copyright is not like property. Not even close.

'Imprison' is a great word choice, because it's literally the only way any work will ever be under the complete control of it's creator. As soon as you release it into the wild in any way, shape or form, that control is gone forever. It has always been this way, but it's especially so today. Nothing is going to come along that can limit or even slow the growth of our ability to reproduce and distribute information as quickly and easily as we now can. You just need to get used to that.

"If you don't like how someone manages their property, don't do business with that person."

I'm pretty sure that exactly what a lot of people are doing; no business. Hard to make a living if nobody wants to do business with you though.

Apple plays My Cousin Vinny

From IMDB:
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Once again, the communication process has broken down between us. It appears to me that you want to skip the arraignment process, go directly to trial, skip that, and get a dismissal. Well, I'm not about to revamp the entire judicial process just because you find yourself in the unique position of defending clients who say they didn't do it.

Apple to Court:
Samsung put out a press release so we should just win the case right now. No need for a trial or a jury or finders of fact or law or anything. Give it us. Give it us now.

Re: Re: Apple plays My Cousin Vinny

you realise 'give it us' and 'give it to us' have exactly inverse meanings

Without the preposition, either 'it' and 'us' could be either the direct or indirect object. I guess in contemporary speech we are accustomed to the pattern [ verb, indirect object, object ], but the alternative [ verb, object, indirect object ] is a valid form; Shakespeare is fond of its use (see sonnet 43: "And nights, bright days, when dreams do show thee me").

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Yes, people do build on what has come before. That's the only way anyone can create new works. Yet, you seem to support the idea that those that have created works under copyright protection have the right to interrupt and inhibit the core process of creating new works despite the fact that they themselves did exactly the same thing.

"I can build on the works of others without permission and then claim copyright over it, but you cannot do the same to me without my permission."

That's what people here take issue with. Why is your work so much more sacred that it must be protected so that others can't do the same to your works even though you did the exact same thing yourself? What you're supporting severely hinders the creative process itself. You can't take the works of the past as a platform to create new works and then bar others from using your works as a platform as you did. That's the epitome of entitlement. If you can use the works of others to make new works, then it only stands to reason that others should be allowed to build on your works.

Re: Re:

Then...what the hell are you arguing in favour of? To hold and enforce a copyright, you must have a work and forbid others from using that work. But...if there is no novelty requirement for copyright, then that means the work you want to protect under copyright is itself a work that uses elements from other works.

Don't you see? Its the complete hypocrisy of copyright law that others and I hate about it. The copyright cartel are allowed take elements from other's work (Brothers Grimm, anyone) repackage them and sell them as their own works, but heaven forfend that one of us peons decides to do the same with Mickey Mouse.

I was reading Torrentfreak and reading it here and dawned on me, the industry wants to frame the debate of copyright as a "tool to protect intellectual property" when the original intent of copyright was to "incentivate creation of new works", not a tool to protect intellectual property at all.

Intellectual property doesn't need protection it needs an incentive to be creeated, it doesn't need strong protections in fact it needs less since it is/was a necessary evil, which is getting harder and harder to justify its existence.

Here's the plan.

Ok. Let's set up an independent nation in the Pacific or somewhere. Decree that there copyright shall last for 1 second after creation. Therefore, any movie that gets cammed and put on the internet is automatically in the public domain in our little Utopia. Now, what if someone in this place decided to sell DVDs he made himself of public domain works? Should be no legal problem right? What if he makes a few digital copies and sends those to people in other countries that request them? The way I see it, the creator's "right" to be the only one to "copy" that work in another country isn't being violated. The copyright has already expired in a country, and all the copies are made there. Giving the copies to other should violate no laws. i mean, come on, it's "copy"right not "sole distributor" right, right?

Constitution

And while everyone seems to be trying to argue over what the US Constitution does/does not say, I'd just like to point out, so what? Maybe copyright is working as the founding fathers intended. Then maybe they were dead wrong. Maybe not? The constitution has lots of wrong/bad stuff sprinkled in. Giving slavers the OK to keep on slavin' comes to mind. Then that amendment that added prohibition, and the one right after that repealed it...no matter how you look at it, one of those had to be wrong.

Point is, it's kind of funny how lots of people will point out that just because something is "illegal" doesn't mean it's morally wrong. But when we start to talk about the Constitution you really never see those arguments. It's like everyone decided that, "Yeah, there can be bad laws, sure. But the Constitution is infallible."

Re: Re:

So, in other words, no, you won't have a substantive discussion with me. Instead you're going to keep playing the someone-was-mean-to-me-on-the-internet card. Hilarious. Could you be any more transparent? Obviously you won't engage me in a substantive debate because you know you can't, and you know I can easily make you look stupid. Keep trying to convince everyone that it's really because I was mean and not because you're scared. I'm sure the stupider ones will buy it. And don't forget the chicken and egg here: I'm mean to you because you won't engage me in a debate. You've been dodging me for years. You *ALWAYS* have an excuse, and you'll *ALWAYS* engage me on the stupid stuff. But you will *NEVER* actually discuss the important stuff--and it's not just me, it's with all your detractors that you run away from debate. Keep making excuses, Mikey.

Re: Re: Re:

Can you explain why anyone would bother trying to have a conversation with you? You really come across as a pretty repulsive person who's simply not worth expending any effort on. Who's right and who's wrong is pretty much irrelevant. If you're so convinced your arguments are so strong, how about working on improving your personality instead.

Re: Re: Re:

So, in other words, no, you won't have a substantive discussion with me. Instead you're going to keep playing the someone-was-mean-to-me-on-the-internet card. Hilarious. Could you be any more transparent? Obviously you won't engage me in a substantive debate because you know you can't, and you know I can easily make you look stupid. Keep trying to convince everyone that it's really because I was mean and not because you're scared. I'm sure the stupider ones will buy it. And don't forget the chicken and egg here: I'm mean to you because you won't engage me in a debate. You've been dodging me for years. You *ALWAYS* have an excuse, and you'll *ALWAYS* engage me on the stupid stuff. But you will *NEVER* actually discuss the important stuff--and it's not just me, it's with all your detractors that you run away from debate. Keep making excuses, Mikey.

People can read that for the details. I regularly engage in substantive debates with those who disagree with me. In fact, in the past I did that with you. But when I did that you threw a moronic temper tantrum and started posting off topic rants and ad hominem attacks on me on EVERY SINGLE post.

When you act like someone who deserves some respect, then you'll get it.

Until then, you get treated like the 2 year old you're acting like when he throws a temper tantrum.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Sigh. The fact is you spout the same old nonsense about what you think the purpose of copyright is. I call you out on it, as do others, and you never ever actually engage us on the merits. You can't/don't/won't ever explain how it is that by excluding others, copyright is somehow not doing what it's supposed to do. You can't/don't/won't ever explain why it is you keep celebrating the fact that Nina violated other people's rights (you're doing again in this very article), while you pretend like "piracy is not OK" and that you don't support it.

Debate me right here in this thread on these two issues, to the end, and I swear I'll leave you alone. You can't/don't/won't, and you know it. And it has nothing to do with me being mean to you. You've been extremely mean to me and you don't hear me whining about it. Grow a pair, Mike. Answer a direct question with a direct answer. Have an actual debate with me where you don't throw out weasel words. I will answer every relevant questions of yours as honestly and as openly as I can. I won't mince words or talk in circles. You do the same.

I know you won't. Everyone knows you won't. It's not a temper tantrum, Mike. It's you ducking out *AGAIN* from an honest and open discussion about these issues, that I believe, you purposefully mislead your readers about. Prove me wrong, Mike. Quit making excuses. Right here. This thread. These issues. And I'll leave you alone for ever. But you have to be forthcoming and direct with your answers. Balls in your court.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I engage substantively on those issues and more with many, and have done so many times on Techdirt, contrary to your false assertions. When you act like you deserve respect, you'll get it. Until then...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I don't want your respect, Mike. I don't think you're a good person, and if you don't respect me, I'm quite alright with that. The fact is, you've been making excuses about why you won't give a simple answer to a simple question for years. Excuses, excuses, excuses. Never once have you just had an open and frank discussion of these issues. Not once. And you and I both know why that is: You're dodging the tough questions because you know that what you're saying is bullshit. Everyone can see that you won't answer even the simplest, most basic direct question. That speaks volumes about the type of person you are. I've got your number, you know it, and you're stomping out of the room like a child who doesn't want to admit that he's wrong. You made your decision to avoid open and frank discussions with detractors long before I came along, Mike.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I'm not a genius, and have a pretty bad memory, still I remember, part of the propuse of copyright law was to expand the public domain, which has not been expanded in at least 50 years (as I said i have a really bad memory, I'm shure it hasn't been expanded by way more than that).

Not only that, copyright was supposed to incentivise the creation of NEW arts, as you have specified yourself, and I'm franckly not seeing that hapenning, not with your definition of NEW anyway.

Apart form that, as has been said numerous times before, the constitutions specifies that there should be a right punishment for a right crime, in copyright however your charged by a thousend times the value of what you suposely took, but if they were wrong they get to go without a significant punishment, furtheremore, to make things look more fair they say they charge you once for everyone who downloaded the works they own, but when they wrongly take a work with the stupid DMCA they pay, well i haven't heard of they paying anything, but i'm shure they'll say something like "i only took it down once so i'll just pay once" withouth caring of all the people who was interested in that work.

You say that copyright is narrow, becouse it covers a single work, without taking into account that sometimes it covers also tiny little pieces of that work, pieces that are very much times part of other works, (which make me return to all of those guy's remembering the 'everything is a remix' point's) and it's not short, since my grandchildren will probably be disabled to use those works.

Also you're not thinking of why do we need new works to be created, surely everyone can create anything, but if it's not going to be distributed then it's no use creating anything new so imprissioning a work shouldn`t be allowed.

Now i really don't remember what else was i going to write soooo.....

I'm off (Don't expect me to be seen here in about one or two weeks, i really don't have the time)

Re: Re:

I'll add this thread to my long list (well over one hundred) of threads where you refused to engage me in a debate when called out for your piratical nonsense. One day I'll post them all so everyone can laugh at what a coward you are. Won't even debate me on his own board with a crowd of folks ready to be at your defense. LOL! Real convincing stuff, Mike. Sure, it's because I was mean. ROFLMAO!!!

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Pretty soon, apparently. I'm giving Mike a few more chances to engage me in a serious discussion where each of us actually address the others' points. I know, I know. That's a lot to ask. But you can see for yourself that Mike is completely unwilling to address any of his detractors on the merits. He's doing it right here. It's always excuse after excuse. Never will he actually just have a regular discussion like a normal human being. If I hadn't tried for years to engage him thusly without response, I wouldn't be so sour. But as it is, I can surmise nothing other than bad faith on his part.